Five of the 10 policemen facing criminal charges for the September 2014 Edsa “hulidap” case disappeared while in the middle of their last court hearing, shortly after the judge announced the issuance of warrants for their arrest.
This was according to Ricardo Valmonte, defense lawyer for the five officers from the Quezon City Police District’s La Loma station, who were tagged in the alleged P1.2-million robbery and abduction incident that victimized two employees of a Marawi City-based businessman.
Valmonte pointed this out to clarify earlier reports that his clients, who were under “restrictive custody ” of the QCPD, escaped from the district headquarters in Camp Karingal.
The QCPD official in charge of securing the officers has been relieved of his post to face investigation.
In an interview on Tuesday, Valmonte said his clients simply “left the courtroom” during their June 3 hearing at the sala of Judge Carlos Valenzuela of Mandaluyong City Regional Trial Court Branch 213.
“They were behind me while I was arguing with the judge to hold off the release of arrest warrants. Then the fiscal (prosecutor) suddenly told me: ‘Your clients are no longer here. They escaped. They left the courtroom.’”
Valmonte represents SPO1 Ramil Hachero, PO2 Mark de Paz, PO2 Ebonn Decatoria, PO2 Jerome Datinguinoo and PO2 Weavin Masa.
He said his clients left after the judge announced that he would be releasing the arrest warrants and amending the information that earlier found probable cause against the officers for illegal detention.
Valmonte claimed he had lost contact with his clients since, but gave an assurance that they would surface “in due time.”
“They are ready to face the complaints against them. We are just setting our strategy,” Valmonte said.
QCPD director Chief Supt. Joel Pagdilao said the relieved head of the District Headquarters Services Unit, Chief Insp. Enrico Figueroa, is facing “precharge evaluation” for his “administrative liability” over the policemen’s disappearance on June 3. Figueroa assumed the post only in May.
According to Pagdilao, officers under restrictive custody can freely roam inside the camp and be given tasks since they are not yet considered detained or being punished. But they are required to sign a daily attendance sheet, he added.
“But if they will step outside, they need to ask permission from their custodian. If they have a hearing, they need to be accompanied by police [escorts],” Pagdilao said.
Valmonte declined to comment and just said “I do not know” when asked about his clients’ police escorts on the day they left the courtroom.
The five QCPD-La Loma policemen represented by Valmonte are among 10 officers tagged in the Sept. 1, 2014, abduction on Edsa in Barangay (village) Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong. The case gained prominence because the act was caught on camera by a motorist and the photo went viral.
Hachero, De Paz, Decatoria, Datinguinoo and Masa surfaced two weeks after the incident to deny their involvement.
The alleged mastermind, Senior Insp. Oliver Villanueva, then head of the La Loma station’s intelligence unit, surrendered to Camp Crame in October.
Villanueva has also disappeared from the custody of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group after the issuance of the arrest warrants.
The La Loma station’s deputy commander, Chief Insp. Joseph de Vera, was the first to be arrested for the incident, followed by PO2 Jonathan Rodriguez, a former La Loma station member who was under the QCPD Public Safety Battalion at the time. Both remain in the custody of the Mandaluyong police.
De Vera is Villanueva’s classmate in the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) Class of 2001.
Another suspect, dismissed Insp. Marco Polo Estrera, remains at large.
The 10th policeman linked to the crime, Senior Insp. Allan Emlano of Caloocan City, was the only one arrested when the warrants were released on June 3. He is also a member of the PNPA Class 2001. –Jaymee T. Gamil
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.